It would be morally, ethically, and legally wrong not to. Parents are required to send their kids to school for good reason, so they can become an educated member of society. If the parents are qualified and have the time then home schooling could be an option but if the parent is that educated and has time they can put the child in a private school.
I think public schools should also make many changes to give the kids a better education. They should get rid of extra curricular things like band, art, chorus and such. These tend to just be distractions that the time could be better used with more important classes or study time. They should also make all schools have dress codes. Dress codes would put less stress on appearance and create a more united atmosphere. I know many teens would not like this but too bad, schools are meant for learning and not about freedom of expression.
First of all, morals, ethics, and legality are three different things with three different meanings. Having a moral obligation implies that it is something within, some desire which is pulling you to do something. Ethics implies that a board or committee has deemed actions as inexcusable and therefore banned it from practice, it may or may not be illegal and it may or may not follow with your morals. Legality is similar to ethics, however instead of a board or committee it is a government and they can punish you with more than just a reprimand.
With those properly defined, we can now pay attention to the main key word: "force". When we see force, all that we see is that people physically come and bring you to school making you learn. Bringing you to public education with NO other alternatives. This is not the case at all... However with the wording of the resolution, it is the only way in which we can argue. You can't bring up other alternatives, or assume it has the many options that the US education system offers, simply because this word shows that the framer of the resolution wrote a question in which there were already no alternatives (even if you did bring up alternatives or attempted to say that the government threatens to imprison those who don't comply, then you are at another impasse for the force wouldn't be on the student but on the parent." And if there are no alternatives, then FORCING people to go to school against their will with no options is most definitely morally, ethically, and legally wrong.
Public schools do a better job of reinforcing the superiority of some children over other than they do educating children. There is a reason children with college educated parents in the middle class almost always rise above those of lesser educated lesser income. It's because education and values are learned at home. The income comes into play because children of lower income families are ridiculed for not fitting into the popular culture and education comes in because children that excel are really home schooled then sent off to the institution to out perform the children whose parents are able to help them. With an average reading level of 7th grade among high school graduates and only 28% of the population with an undergraduate degree it's no wonder there is such social stratification within public schools. Schools need uniforms and grading to be removed in order to successfully educate the masses. Studies show in classes without grades the class as a whole does remarkably better at learning. Studies also show that blending in is important in the social aspect of an educational institution.
Homeschooling is an effective method of education and while I understand the argument that students need an outlet to make friends and learn how to socialize, many students walk through school feeling harassed and lonely. A lot of children are able to think clearly and focus better on education when they're not actually in a school environment. Aside from that, some young adults feel like school has rejected them and they struggle to much to want to continue trying to conform to that setting. Perhaps these students need to be given alternatives to a typical educational setting. My opinion on this says that students should have the same rights as adults, but I also acknowledge it would be difficult to have any other process.
All fifty states have allowances for private education and homeschooling. So no, it's not right to make people go to a place they feel unsafe, disrespected or unhappy, however, that is not the only option available to kids. The real moral argument here aught to be related to why we find it morally acceptable to only allow wealthy individuals access to education in environments that don't make them feel disrespected, unsafe, or unhappy.
When schools are provided with a constant flow of new students, required by law to go there, the issues of not learning things, being damaged mentally (stress), physically (poor school lunch program, etc), and emotionally (constantly being told they're lazy/not paying attention/need to study harder), and having more busy-work than actual work (including a one-size-fits-all attitude), are not addressed.
If students were able to choose what school/what classes to take based on if they actually learned things/the class was interesting, were able to choose what homework they needed to do, and were allowed to leave/join the class at any time, then schools with a bad curriculum would have an incentive to make learning interesting and more efficient (i.E. Learning more in a shorter amount of time).
It's easily possible to make learning interesting, engaging, and to make people actually learn and remember what they learned. What I find alarming is that school almost always does none of these things, which makes school pointless. Making school optional would provide an incentive for schools to be interesting and educational.